New API included in eComStation - OS2

This is a discussion on New API included in eComStation - OS2 ; Get back on your meds hubert -->OS2 runs quite well without REXX. Thus proving my point that you don't have the first clue about what you are taling about. -->Its cause by you not taking your meds.
In , on ...

Re: New API included in eComStation

Get back on your meds hubert -->OS2 runs quite well without REXX. Thus proving my point that you don't have the first clue about what you are taling about. -->Its cause by you not taking your meds.

In , on 04/10/2005
at 03:47 PM, "Herbert Rosenau" said:
>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:35:10 UTC, letoured@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> hubert you asshole --> an rexx_dll is not for OS2 only. Get back on your meds. You lost this one as you lost every whining claim you make here.

>letoured, naming himself asshole speaking with imself:
>> PS: State looking for a real job. ecs booby is out of business.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In , on 04/10/2005
>> at 06:59 AM, "Herbert Rosenau" said:
>>
>> >On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 17:19:05 UTC, letoured@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Hubert, an rexx_dll is not for OS2 only.
>>
>> >Have you tried to run on Windows or Linux? So, when it is not for OS/2
>> >only why would it not work there?
>> >
>> >It is always the fudster letoured who names himself asshole and is
>> >unable to prove a singe word of the craps he writes, proving himself as
>> >fudster.
>>
>> >eCS is more than OS/2.
>
>Have you tried to run a REXX DLL like this on Windows or Linux? So, when
>it is not for OS/2
>only why would it not work there?
>
>It is always the fudster letoured who names himself asshole and is
>unable to prove a singe word of the craps he writes, proving himself as
>fudster.
>
>eCS is more than OS/2.

Re: New API included in eComStation

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 Herbert Rosenau wrote:

[eCS Rexx library]
> Without ongoing developement a system will die.

Indeed ...
> A new set of APIs is the base easy developement. Look at the IBM
> toolkit! There are a lot of kernel APIs unknown in OS/2 WARP 3 and
> OS/2 WARP 4.0.

Since IBM passed (Object) Rexx to the RexxLA, I suggest to invest efforts
there to ensure an OS/2 port which keeps up with the other platforms. A
useful side effect would be the portability of (O)Rexx scripts which
doesn't use OS/2-specific functions (like WPS control). IIRC, IBM passed
the window library as well, so portable scripts with a GUI frontend should
be possible as well.

Re: New API included in eComStation

Get back on your meds hubert -->OS2 runs quite well without REXX. Thus proving my point that you don't have the first clue about what you are taling about. -->Its cause by you not taking your meds.

In , on 04/10/2005
at 03:47 PM, "Herbert Rosenau" said:
>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:35:10 UTC, letoured@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> hubert you asshole --> an rexx_dll is not for OS2 only. Get back on your meds. You lost this one as you lost every whining claim you make here.

>letoured, naming himself asshole speaking with imself:
>> PS: State looking for a real job. ecs booby is out of business.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In , on 04/10/2005
>> at 06:59 AM, "Herbert Rosenau" said:
>>
>> >On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 17:19:05 UTC, letoured@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Hubert, an rexx_dll is not for OS2 only.
>>
>> >Have you tried to run on Windows or Linux? So, when it is not for OS/2
>> >only why would it not work there?
>> >
>> >It is always the fudster letoured who names himself asshole and is
>> >unable to prove a singe word of the craps he writes, proving himself as
>> >fudster.
>>
>> >eCS is more than OS/2.
>
>Have you tried to run a REXX DLL like this on Windows or Linux? So, when
>it is not for OS/2
>only why would it not work there?
>
>It is always the fudster letoured who names himself asshole and is
>unable to prove a singe word of the craps he writes, proving himself as
>fudster.
>
>eCS is more than OS/2.

Re: New API included in eComStation

: At the Microsoft booth, he pointed at whatever the newest thing they
: were pushing was, and asked how to develop for it. They handed him the
: SDK.
:
: Later, when Win95 was out, I was at Egghead, and noticed that you could
: pick up there *everything* you needed to start Windows programming--both
: all the tools *and* documentation (the MSDN Library). With OS/2, the
: best you could do was get the Watcom compiler. That was when I realized
: OS/2 really was done.

Microsoft has always cared about their developers as they consider third party
applications and drivers to be of strategic nature to drive their business as
it's what provided real value to their customers (who would by Windows if no
applications or device drivers for new hardware was available?).

IBM never understood it the same way (they even now thought that pre loading was
everything that counted, and they failed even at that, even if they at that time
owned one of the biggest part of the market with their own IBM PC machines).

Yes, Microsoft was and is a very aggressive competitor, but so is IBM, Oracle
and Sun as well. The difference is that Microsoft really understood (almost on
an emotional level) the importance of the small computer market and how it would
affect the world.

Re: New API included in eComStation

: People outside the OS/2 community are largely unaware that anything at
: all is happening, and the press doesn't dissuade them of that frame of
: mind (Linux is the appointed alternative these days, not OS/2), but a
: user who is knowledgable about the existing projects and who is willing
: to utilize a mix of native and non-native software under OS/2 is still
: able to solve a surprisingly large number of tasks.

The problem would be (at least IMHO) that you with such an approach would loose
the actual benefits of using OS/2 (like the WPS desktop good integration with
the native WPS aware applications). But I'm not the one to tell why people
should use one system over the other (it's just me personally who consider WPS
to be the unique advantage of OS/2 and eCS).

Re: New API included in eComStation

Jason Bowen wrote:
> Throw me in your list Jeramie. You're the umpteen person asking for
> this in the past 10 years, you're a little late to the party. This is
> the equivalent of public street corner. If you want a public moderated
> forum use comp.os.os2.moderated or else filter me out.

Re: New API included in eComStation

In article ,martinot@gmail.com says...
> Captain's log. On StarDate Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:21:12 GMT received comm from Tim
> Smith on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>
> : At the Microsoft booth, he pointed at whatever the newest thing they
> : were pushing was, and asked how to develop for it. They handed him the
> : SDK.
> :
> : Later, when Win95 was out, I was at Egghead, and noticed that you could
> : pick up there *everything* you needed to start Windows programming--both
> : all the tools *and* documentation (the MSDN Library). With OS/2, the
> : best you could do was get the Watcom compiler. That was when I realized
> : OS/2 really was done.
>
> Microsoft has always cared about their developers as they consider third party
> applications and drivers to be of strategic nature to drive their business as
> it's what provided real value to their customers (who would by Windows if no
> applications or device drivers for new hardware was available?).
>
> IBM never understood it the same way (they even now thought that pre loading was
> everything that counted, and they failed even at that, even if they at that time
> owned one of the biggest part of the market with their own IBM PC machines).
>
> Yes, Microsoft was and is a very aggressive competitor, but so is IBM, Oracle
> and Sun as well. The difference is that Microsoft really understood (almost on
> an emotional level) the importance of the small computer market and how it would
> affect the world.
>
> martin törnsten
>
>
Well said. Back in 95, I had a copy of IBM's equivalent to MS' MSDN. It
was quite bad compared to MS'.

It is really simple. People want to run applications. That's it. No
apps, no users for the os. No os.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy

--------------------------------------

Re: New API included in eComStation

In article ,martinot@gmail.com says...
> Captain's log. On StarDate Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:06:27 -0400 received comm from
> rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>
> : People outside the OS/2 community are largely unaware that anything at
> : all is happening, and the press doesn't dissuade them of that frame of
> : mind (Linux is the appointed alternative these days, not OS/2), but a
> : user who is knowledgable about the existing projects and who is willing
> : to utilize a mix of native and non-native software under OS/2 is still
> : able to solve a surprisingly large number of tasks.
>
> The problem would be (at least IMHO) that you with such an approach would loose
> the actual benefits of using OS/2 (like the WPS desktop good integration with
> the native WPS aware applications). But I'm not the one to tell why people
> should use one system over the other (it's just me personally who consider WPS
> to be the unique advantage of OS/2 and eCS).
>
> martin törnsten
>
>
But how is it an advantage. This conversation has been had before. There
is precious little that you can do with the WPS that you cannot do with
the Windows or Linux GUI.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy

--------------------------------------

Re: New API included in eComStation

Here in comp.os.os2.misc, David H. McCoy
spake unto us, saying:
>In article ,
>frankwochatz@despammed.com says...
>
>> The 2 GB limit in older OS/2 versions is very theoretical limit.
>> Unless you are using video manipulation, you will not need such large
>> files.
>
>True, but not theoretical. PVRs need at least 3gig/hour.

Actually, my ReplayTV 5040 only uses approximately 1 GB/hour for its
recordings at the lowest level recording quality, which is what I tend
to use all the time now (the pixellation problems it had with cartoons
and similar shows at "standard" quality were resolved a couple of patch
levels ago).

Re: New API included in eComStation

Jeramie Samphere wrote:
> David T. Johnson wrote:
>
>> Interesting post. Personally, I would prefer the 'standard OS/2'
>> method for security reasons but that's probably a minor point if you
>> alrady have a hostile REXX-ware running on your system. Your post,
>> however, seems like you are advocating what you seem to feel is a
>> significant feature of 'eCS' here in these newsgroups. For what
>> reason are you doing that? Every one of the handful of readers here
>> has either already bought 'eCS' or probably never will. If you really
>> want to evangelize for 'eCS' why not do it somewhere where there might
>> be some people who are interested? The single biggest thing holding
>> back progress in 'eCS' is its miniscule user base which seems to be
>> mostly just a small band of former OS/2 users. Why not reach out to
>> Windows, Mac, and Linux users rather than spend your time trading
>> posts here with OS/2 users? Wouldn't that be more helpful to the eCS
>> you seem to like?
>
>
> This avenue is being pursued! The foundation needs to be laid first
> before the store can be put up!

You didn't respond to my questions. Why are you here advocating eCS to
a small group of users who has either already bought eCS or probably
never will? Second, why aren't you advocating 'eCS' somewhere where
there might be some interested Windows, Mac, or Linux users?
>
>
>>
>>
>> ecsrulez@os2ecs.org wrote:
>>
>>> eComStation includes a new REXX API that enhances and provides new
>>> functionality for REXX applications.
>>>
>>> The new API is contained in a DLL that first shipped with eComStation
>>> v1.1 called ECSRXLIB.DLL
>>>
>>> The new API provides these new calls to REXX programs and utilities:
>>>
>>> rc=ECSLOADFUNCS([version])
>>> [version] name of the variable to store the version number in
>>>
>>> rc=ECSDROPFUNCS()
>>>
>>> rc=ECSSTARTPROGRAMME(, [parameters], [environment],
>>> [starttype], [startfocus], [startoptions], [cause])
>>> Programme file
>>> [parameters] Parameters for the programme
>>> [environment] Environment variables separated by a |
>>> [starttype] OS2F(ULL)|OS2W(IN)|OS2P(M)|DOSF(ULL)|DOSW(IN)|DE(F AULT)
>>> [startfocus] F(OREGROUND)|B(ACKGROUND)
>>> [startoptions] P(ARENT)|S(HELL)
>>> [cause] Name of the variable to return the failure cause in
>>>
>>> rc=ECSCOPY(, , [options], [cause])
>>> A file
>>> [options] A(PPEND)|R(EPLACE)|F(AIL)
>>> [cause] Name of the variable to return the failure cause in
>>>
>>> rc=ECSDELETE(, [force], [recoverable], [cause])
>>> A file
>>> [force] F(ORCE)|N(OFORCE)
>>> [recoverable] R(ECOVERABLE)|N(OTRECOVERABLE)
>>> [cause] Name of the variable to return the failure cause in
>>>
>>> rc=ECSCLOSEOBJECT()
>>> Title of the object in the switchlist
>>>
>>> rc=ECSQUERYSWITCHLIST()
>>> Name of the variable to use as stem to return the
>>> switchlist
>>>
>>> rc=ECSDELTREE(, [force], [cause])
>>> File to delete
>>> [force] F(ORCE)|N(OFORCE)
>>> [cause] Name of the variable to return the failure cause in
>>>
>>> rc=ECSMAKEPATH(, [cause])
>>> Path to create, either relative or absolute
>>> [cause] Name of the variable to return the failure cause in
>>>
>>> Return code is always 0 (FALSE) or 1 (TRUE)
>>> [cause] is only set if the return code is false
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is some sample code to use these new calls:
>>>
>>> /* Load New eComStation REXX API */
>>> IF LoadECSlib() THEN RETURN 1
>>> LoadRexxUtil:
>>>
>>> IF RxFuncQuery('SysLoadFuncs') <> 0 THEN
>>> DO
>>> IF RxFuncAdd('SysLoadFuncs','RexxUtil','SysLoadFuncs' ) THEN
>>> RETURN 1
>>> CALL SysLoadFuncs
>>> END
>>> RETURN 0
>>>
>>> LoadECSLib:
>>>
>>> IF RxFuncQuery('eCSLoadFuncs') <> 0 THEN
>>> DO
>>> IF RxFuncAdd('eCSLoadFuncs','ECSRXLIB','eCSLoadFuncs' ) THEN
>>> RETURN 1
>>> CALL eCSLoadFuncs
>>> END
>>> RETURN 0
>>>
>>>
>>> This new API provides the REXX programmer enhanced functions and new
>>> functions.
>>> The new eCSCopy() call is one such example that provides the ability to
>>> copy files and overwrite existing ones. Standard OS/2 only allowed this
>>> function using the limited internal OS/2 Copy command. The new
>>> eCSCopy() call dosn't require a new command session to be started and
>>> can take advantabe of dynamic increases in file handles on a per
>>> session basis.
>>>
>>> Another nice addition is the 'cause' parameter which allows more in
>>> depth error reporting from the calls.
>>>
>>> This new REXX API is another example of the great value that you get
>>> with eComStation, making it easier for software developers and users
>>> alike to use there "operating platform of choice"!
>>>

--
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and IBM Web Browser v2.0.4

Re: New API included in eComStation

David H. McCoy wrote:
> In article ,
> frankwochatz@despammed.com says...
>
>>>>And GRADD is only ONE example.
>>>
>>>Yeah, JFS with its possibility to use files up to 2 TB in sise is
>>>really incompatible because you can't copy so big files to HPFS and
>>>you'll even not able to copy them through the peer network.
>>
>>The 2 GB limit in older OS/2 versions is very theoretical limit.
>>Unless you are using video manipulation, you will not need such large
>>files.
>>
>
> True, but not theoretical. PVRs need at least 3gig/hour. That is a very
> real concern for an increasing number of people. And let's face, only
> someone hardcore enough to put together an HTPC would still use OS/2.

The space requirements for a file being created by a PVR depend on the
image and sound quality settings that you are using. But 3 GB/hr is not
unreasonable for a medium-quality recording. OS/2 allows files up to 2
TB in size on JFS volumes which would be about a month of continuous
recording at your 3 GB/hr rate. The largest desktop hard drive I have
seen was about 400 GB, though. In OS/2 you can put several drives
together in one volume with drive spanning to reach the multi-TB level
for a single file. If you were determined to copy the file to an HPFS
volume, you could break it up and copy the pieces over to an HPFS
volume(s) for reassembly later. The EmperoarTV OS/2 app with the
Hauppage PVR 350 hardware also allows you to set the maximum file size
you want while recording and it automatically starts a new file if the
limit is reached during recording. Presumably, Windows apps have a
similar feature.

--
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and IBM Web Browser v2.0.4

Re: New API included in eComStation

David T. Johnson wrote:
> Jeramie Samphere wrote:
>
>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting post. Personally, I would prefer the 'standard OS/2'
>>> method for security reasons but that's probably a minor point if you
>>> alrady have a hostile REXX-ware running on your system. Your post,
>>> however, seems like you are advocating what you seem to feel is a
>>> significant feature of 'eCS' here in these newsgroups. For what
>>> reason are you doing that? Every one of the handful of readers here
>>> has either already bought 'eCS' or probably never will. If you
>>> really want to evangelize for 'eCS' why not do it somewhere where
>>> there might be some people who are interested? The single biggest
>>> thing holding back progress in 'eCS' is its miniscule user base which
>>> seems to be mostly just a small band of former OS/2 users. Why not
>>> reach out to Windows, Mac, and Linux users rather than spend your
>>> time trading posts here with OS/2 users? Wouldn't that be more
>>> helpful to the eCS you seem to like?
>>
>> This avenue is being pursued! The foundation needs to be laid first
>> before the store can be put up!
>
> You didn't respond to my questions. Why are you here advocating eCS to
> a small group of users who has either already bought eCS or probably
> never will? Second, why aren't you advocating 'eCS' somewhere where
> there might be some interested Windows, Mac, or Linux users?

And he will never respond to your questions because the answer
will reveal the truth behind Serenity's failed salesmen: that no one
outside the OS/2 user base has any interest whatsoever in eComstation.
And not because there are those who have an interest in something
other than Microsoft, but because eComstation is a luser product
that only brainwashed naive idiots would buy into.

Now let's sit back and see if the "Hobbes Thief" will respond and
answer your questions.

Re: New API included in eComStation

The OS/2 Guy wrote:
>
> And he will never respond to your questions because the answer
> will reveal the truth behind Serenity's failed salesmen: that no one
> outside the OS/2 user base has any interest whatsoever in eComstation.
> And not because there are those who have an interest in something
> other than Microsoft, but because eComstation is a luser product
> that only brainwashed naive idiots would buy into.
>

Interesting take on why somebody wouldn't answer a question... Now where
is you dissertation available again?
> Now let's sit back and see if the "Hobbes Thief" will respond and
> answer your questions.
>

We know that you are too much of a coward to respond to calls for proof
of your claims.

Re: New API included in eComStation

: seen was about 400 GB, though. In OS/2 you can put several drives
: together in one volume with drive spanning to reach the multi-TB level

Good (as all other modern OS supports that technology, even if I'm a bit unsure
if it has been tested with several TB of data in real live situations).

: for a single file. If you were determined to copy the file to an HPFS
: volume, you could break it up and copy the pieces over to an HPFS
: volume(s) for reassembly later. The EmperoarTV OS/2 app with the
: Hauppage PVR 350 hardware also allows you to set the maximum file size
: you want while recording and it automatically starts a new file if the
: limit is reached during recording. Presumably, Windows apps have a
: similar feature.

I use the specially tailored Windows XP PVR version, Windows XP Media Center,
I'm not sure if such an option actually exists (haven't seen it, but haven't
looked for it specifically either as there is no practical need for it in XP).

I wouldn't bet on it!

That said it works *extremely well* and can be highly recommended for anyone
setting up their own HTPC (can mount and connected to OS/2 machines with some
tweaks of registry for file sharing). Perfect to run with the OEM IR remote you
can buy together (only sold as an OEM version). No daily need for keyboard or
mouse to control it. Just use it like any other home theater or hifi component!

Re: New API included in eComStation

In article <3rgWCpHpv+oW092yn@visi.com>, rsteiner@visi.com says...
> Here in comp.os.os2.misc, David H. McCoy
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >In article ,
> >frankwochatz@despammed.com says...
> >
> >> The 2 GB limit in older OS/2 versions is very theoretical limit.
> >> Unless you are using video manipulation, you will not need such large
> >> files.
> >
> >True, but not theoretical. PVRs need at least 3gig/hour.
>
> Actually, my ReplayTV 5040 only uses approximately 1 GB/hour for its
> recordings at the lowest level recording quality, which is what I tend
> to use all the time now (the pixellation problems it had with cartoons
> and similar shows at "standard" quality were resolved a couple of patch
> levels ago).
>
> It doesn't invalidate your overall point; I'm just picking a nit. :-)
>
>
Well, I wasn't precise. I was talking about good quality. SageTV can go
as low as .75gig/hr without creating a custome setting. I'm assuming
something that looks good. I've found that for me that is 3gig/hr.
However, even that is not in stone. For example, some favorites I have
at 2gig, because it is either old, like M.A.S.H. or a cartoon like The
Simpsons.

I used to use the highest out of the box settings at 5gig/hr until I
tried lower and found, for me, no discernible different between 5 and 3.
In fact, Sage now supports a Plextor Divx card that encodes directly to
Divx. I've got a friend who uses it and it can do even smaller files for
the same quality about 1gig and it rivals a 3 gig mpeg2 setting.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy

--------------------------------------

Re: New API included in eComStation

In article ,martinot@gmail.com says...
> Captain's log. On StarDate Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:09:58 -0700 received comm from
> "David T. Johnson" on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>
> Warning, a bit OT... (even if connected to OS/2).
>
> : seen was about 400 GB, though. In OS/2 you can put several drives
> : together in one volume with drive spanning to reach the multi-TB level
>
> Good (as all other modern OS supports that technology, even if I'm a bit unsure
> if it has been tested with several TB of data in real live situations).
>
> : for a single file. If you were determined to copy the file to an HPFS
> : volume, you could break it up and copy the pieces over to an HPFS
> : volume(s) for reassembly later. The EmperoarTV OS/2 app with the
> : Hauppage PVR 350 hardware also allows you to set the maximum file size
> : you want while recording and it automatically starts a new file if the
> : limit is reached during recording. Presumably, Windows apps have a
> : similar feature.
>
> I use the specially tailored Windows XP PVR version, Windows XP Media Center,
> I'm not sure if such an option actually exists (haven't seen it, but haven't
> looked for it specifically either as there is no practical need for it in XP).
>
> I wouldn't bet on it!
>
> That said it works *extremely well* and can be highly recommended for anyone
> setting up their own HTPC (can mount and connected to OS/2 machines with some
> tweaks of registry for file sharing). Perfect to run with the OEM IR remote you
> can buy together (only sold as an OEM version). No daily need for keyboard or
> mouse to control it. Just use it like any other home theater or hifi component!
>
> I love it!!! http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/
>
> I have bought an Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-500MCE card which I will install as soon as
> I have some time. It has 2 TV tuners (NICAM stereo) and 1 FM tuner on one single
> PCI card! Nice! http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/produ...pvr500mce.html
>
> martin törnsten
>
>
I use SageTV. That EmperoarTV software doesn't have a tenth of the
feature of Windows PVRs or MythTV. As for the maximum file size, well,
that is because HPFS tops out and the thing wouldn't work. NTFS users
don't have to worry about that.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy

--------------------------------------

Re: New API included in eComStation

Martin Törnsten wrote:
> Captain's log. On StarDate Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:09:58 -0700 received comm from
> "David T. Johnson" on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>
> Warning, a bit OT... (even if connected to OS/2).
>
> : seen was about 400 GB, though. In OS/2 you can put several drives
> : together in one volume with drive spanning to reach the multi-TB level
>
> Good (as all other modern OS supports that technology, even if I'm a bit unsure
> if it has been tested with several TB of data in real live situations).

Well, it certainly has been tested for files greater than 2 GB which was
what we were talking about. If I had a 1 terabyte file, I would much
prefer it to be on JFS rather than NTFS, assuming that NTFS even allows
a 1 terabyte file.
>
> : for a single file. If you were determined to copy the file to an HPFS
> : volume, you could break it up and copy the pieces over to an HPFS
> : volume(s) for reassembly later. The EmperoarTV OS/2 app with the
> : Hauppage PVR 350 hardware also allows you to set the maximum file size
> : you want while recording and it automatically starts a new file if the
> : limit is reached during recording. Presumably, Windows apps have a
> : similar feature.
>
> I use the specially tailored Windows XP PVR version, Windows XP Media Center,
> I'm not sure if such an option actually exists (haven't seen it, but haven't
> looked for it specifically either as there is no practical need for it in XP).

The discussion is about OS/2, not Windows XP. If you want to advocate
Windows XP, then drop the COOM and COOE newsgroups.
>
> I wouldn't bet on it!
>
> That said it works *extremely well* and can be highly recommended for anyone
> setting up their own HTPC (can mount and connected to OS/2 machines with some
> tweaks of registry for file sharing).

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to with the 'tweaks of
registry.' That sounds like a Windows XP thing. I am glad you are
happy with whatever it is you use.
> Perfect to run with the OEM IR remote you
> can buy together (only sold as an OEM version). No daily need for keyboard or
> mouse to control it. Just use it like any other home theater or hifi component!

So for, one TV tuner has been adequate for my needs. Actually, I don't
use even that.
>
> martin törnsten
>

--
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and IBM Web Browser v2.0.4

Re: New API included in eComStation

David H. McCoy wrote:
> In article ,
> martinot@gmail.com says...
>
>>Captain's log. On StarDate Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:09:58 -0700 received comm from
>>"David T. Johnson" on channel comp.os.os2.misc:
>>
>>Warning, a bit OT... (even if connected to OS/2).
>>
>>: seen was about 400 GB, though. In OS/2 you can put several drives
>>: together in one volume with drive spanning to reach the multi-TB level
>>
>>Good (as all other modern OS supports that technology, even if I'm a bit unsure
>>if it has been tested with several TB of data in real live situations).
>>
>>: for a single file. If you were determined to copy the file to an HPFS
>>: volume, you could break it up and copy the pieces over to an HPFS
>>: volume(s) for reassembly later. The EmperoarTV OS/2 app with the
>>: Hauppage PVR 350 hardware also allows you to set the maximum file size
>>: you want while recording and it automatically starts a new file if the
>>: limit is reached during recording. Presumably, Windows apps have a
>>: similar feature.
>>
>>I use the specially tailored Windows XP PVR version, Windows XP Media Center,
>>I'm not sure if such an option actually exists (haven't seen it, but haven't
>>looked for it specifically either as there is no practical need for it in XP).
>>
>>I wouldn't bet on it!
>>
>>That said it works *extremely well* and can be highly recommended for anyone
>>setting up their own HTPC (can mount and connected to OS/2 machines with some
>>tweaks of registry for file sharing). Perfect to run with the OEM IR remote you
>>can buy together (only sold as an OEM version). No daily need for keyboard or
>>mouse to control it. Just use it like any other home theater or hifi component!
>>
>>I love it!!! http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/
>>
>>I have bought an Hauppauge WinTV-PVR-500MCE card which I will install as soon as
>>I have some time. It has 2 TV tuners (NICAM stereo) and 1 FM tuner on one single
>>PCI card! Nice! http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/produ...pvr500mce.html
>>
>>martin törnsten
>>
>>
>
> I use SageTV. That EmperoarTV software doesn't have a tenth of the
> feature of Windows PVRs or MythTV.

Frankly, the EmperoarTV does more than what I need. If it didn't, I
suppose I could look into some options like using VPC or ODIN to run
something else. I'm just happy to have something that works well on
OS/2 so that I don't have to boot Windows XP to use it. The Hauppage PVR
350 card came with a CD-ROM of Windows software that I haven't even
cracked the seal on, much less installed it because I haven't needed it.
There was a video editor on there that I might give a try on OS/2 with
ODIN or VPC to see what happens but there's no hurry.

As for the maximum file size, well,
> that is because HPFS tops out and the thing wouldn't work. NTFS users
> don't have to worry about that.

EmperoarTV will save to any OS/2 volume, HPFS or JFS. JFS has a 2
Terabyte file size limit which is far more than I need. I could
probably also save directly to CD or DVD RW which is something Windows
seems to have trouble with.

Re: New API included in eComStation

: > : seen was about 400 GB, though. In OS/2 you can put several drives
: > : together in one volume with drive spanning to reach the multi-TB level

: Well, it certainly has been tested for files greater than 2 GB which was
: what we were talking about. If I had a 1 terabyte file, I would much
: prefer it to be on JFS rather than NTFS, assuming that NTFS even allows
: a 1 terabyte file.

Facts: Yes, NTFS has been designed for it since start (long before OS/2 JFS).

Advocacy: No, I'm not really interested to "debate" with you which file system
you should prefer. It's hypothetical anyway since you don't use files of more
than 1 TB, and your "assurance" is of little value as you actually hasn't tested
it yourself, but just falls down to typical advocacy here. Sorry; no interest.

: > : for a single file. If you were determined to copy the file to an HPFS
: > : volume, you could break it up and copy the pieces over to an HPFS
: > : volume(s) for reassembly later. The EmperoarTV OS/2 app with the
: > : Hauppage PVR 350 hardware also allows you to set the maximum file size
: > : you want while recording and it automatically starts a new file if the
: > : limit is reached during recording. Presumably, Windows apps have a
: > : similar feature.
: >
: > I use the specially tailored Windows XP PVR version, Windows XP Media Center,
: > I'm not sure if such an option actually exists (haven't seen it, but haven't
: > looked for it specifically either as there is no practical need for it in XP).

: The discussion is about OS/2, not Windows XP. If you want to advocate
: Windows XP, then drop the COOM and COOE newsgroups.

1.

I didn't start the discussion about PVR. I didn't start to compare OS/2 with
Windows. You yourself (posted to all these groups) posted assumptions and
comparison to Windows. I personally felt that before I entered this discussion
it already was a bit off topic. No one had complained before, and to be really
sure I even posted a warning about OT in the beginning. Remember that it
actually was exactly *you*, and your post about exactly this topic, who I
answered to.

2.

Even if you use OS/2 it's fully possible to see WXP MCE on the network to
transfer MP3, JPG and other files you want to use on your HTPC device in the
living room. I just see my WXP MCE like any other device in my living room
(video, CD player, radio tuner, etc).

3.

I think it shouldn't need to be so strict rules that such things are not allowed
to be mentioned (it's of potentially good use for OS/2 users who also uses SMB
file sharing, as they can easily connect to it over the normal home network).
You get so much crap posted in these groups all the time with meaningless and
childish rants (see all the low quality OS/2 vs eCS "discussions") that some bit
of nicely discussed OT topics shouldn't need to be net copped out (especially if
it's only one sided). Be it about beer, Japan, some politics, or *shockingly* a
PVR device based on a non OS/2 based system (like XP or Linux).

4.

You yourself (without any problems or thoughts about it, it seems) starts
"discussion" (I would call it pure advocacy) in exactly these groups about which
file system who is (presumably, as you have no experience from it what so ever
in the context discussed) the best one to use. Strange that you didn't remove
exactly those groups you demand that others should remove.

5.

People in this group who has known me for many years and read my posts know very
well that even if I like Windows (NT/CE) a lot (just like OS/2 and *BSD), I'm
not one of those who like do advocate it, or any other advocacy discussions.

Yes, I can get really excited about good products who actually works very well,
be it a colour laser printer, good firewall, or even occasionally a solution
based on/related to Windows. In a world with so many poor products I like to
recommend things when I have a solution and products who excels my own demands
and anticipations on it. As long as it's of connection to, and probably some
value for some OS/2 users as well, I haven't had any problems with mention such
things or recommendations.

6.

To not have you complain and "net cop" even more (I'm not too interested in
these type of "discussions" with you either -- even if I wanted to take some
time to explain why I didn't see it as a crime or problem to not remove those
groups for a short reply to you), I will move the discussion according to your
wish:

FT -> comp.os.os2.advocacy (on demand by DTJ, who doesn't follow his own advice)

: > That said it works *extremely well* and can be highly recommended for anyone
: > setting up their own HTPC (can mount and connected to OS/2 machines with some
: > tweaks of registry for file sharing).
:
: Sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to with the 'tweaks of
: registry.' That sounds like a Windows XP thing. I am glad you are
: happy with whatever it is you use.

And now finally for some facts (which I still think belongs in this group):

OS/2 sends passwords in the clear on the networks. Windows (since the last five
years at least) encrypts them, and also as standard demands that any network
connections (file mounts, IPC, etc) supports that. It's however possible to turn
of that with a registry setting if you need to connect to machines who doesn't
support sending encrypted passwords (Win95, OS/2, etc). Doing this makes it
quite interesting for users with OS/2 on a home network to easily connect to
their PVR device in the living room (perhaps you have an OS/2 machine in your
office with some music you want to transfer, or upload your digital camera
picture to show your family on your living room TV).

Re: New API included in eComStation

> Frank I'm just about ready to put Designer 4.1 on Limewire so you will stop whining about it not working. Will that make you happy?

Is Designer 4.1 a native OS/2 application as well as Designer 3.1?

I have the Win16 version already here, but I'm running PROTECTONLY=YES
(no windows / DOS support).

But I can live without Designer 3.1, its not the problem (Impos/2 is
the bigger problem).

My intention was to talk about how to handle APIs and compatibilty in
future.
Instead of new installers and desktop enhancements of eCs 1.2, I would
prefer to see some bug fixes in upcoming OS/2 - eCs versions, e.g. a
fixed GRADD bug.
Or alternatevly ONE new graphic card driver, which will work with ONE
graphic board correctly, instead of a univeral graphic card driver
based on GRADD. Or fixes and PPD-documention for the PostScript
printer driver. Thats what I would expect from eCs: to bundle the
whole SOHO OS/2 users to one large account and then knocking on IBMs
door and ask for bug fixes. At this moment I have the feeling that
eCs will be the coolest desktop, but you can't something work with it.
Missing apps, missing or half-working drivers, old OS/2 bugs not
fixed, new bugs introduced - but a very cool styling, and now new
APIs.